A judge today ruled that the public can be told that Jon Venables, one of the killers of two-year-old James Bulger, has been charged with downloading and distributing child pornography.

Venables, now 27, has been given a new identity since his release from prison on licence for his part in the 1993 murder of the toddler, who was abducted from a Merseyside shopping centre.

In March this year it was revealed that he was recalled to prison for breaching the terms of his licence. Legal orders meant the media could not report the new allegations against him, but today the reporting restrictions were partially relaxed by a judge after a challenge by news organisations.

Venables is accused of downloading 57 indecent photographs of youngsters on to his computer between February, last year and February this year. He is also charged with making seven indecent images of children available to others on the internet between 1 and 23 February this year.

The next stage of the criminal case will be a plea and case management hearing on 23 July at the Old Bailey in London. This will be the first chance Venables has to formally respond to the two charges he faces, by pleading guilty or not guilty.

Venables is not expected to attend the July hearing in person, but is likely to follow proceedings from prison via a videolink. Gavin Millar QC, for director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer, told Mr Justice Bean that he would read the charges out for the record.

He said: "A man known as Jon Venables has been charged with two offences." He said the photographs in the first charge were listed in a schedule. The second charge related to distributing images through the internet.

He added: "The Crown's case against Mr Venables is that seven images of children were downloaded by him between these dates. The use and availability of peer-to-peer software on his computer to download made it possible for – in effect, exposed for acquisition for a finite period for – other internet users to search for photographs to download. There is no evidence that anybody did acquire them by that route."

The injunction imposing the reporting restrictions on the media was imposed by Bean last month.

Venables and Robert Thompson were given new identities, which cannot be revealed, when they were released from jail on licence in 2001. One of the reasons the pair were given the identities was because of fears for their safety. The killing of Bulger provoked strong emotions in sections of the public and media and ministers were presented with a series of dilemmas about how to handle the subsequent stages of the management and release of Venables and Thompson.

The decision to recall Venables to prison eight years after his release provoked intense public and media interest.

The then Labour government initially refused to give any details and the then justice secretary Jack Straw said a future trial involving Venables could be compromised.

Under the terms of the order, the media can not report Venables's new identity, or where he is living.

In 1993 Venables and Thompson abducted Bulger from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, and left him for dead on a railway line. He had been beaten with bricks and an iron bar.

Venables and Thompson, who were truanting from school, walked James around the streets of Liverpool for more than two miles, stopping occasionally to kick and punch him. They told adults who intervened that he was their brother.

They were convicted following a trial at Preston crown court and ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, the usual sentence for life imprisonment when the offender is a juvenile.

Robin Makin, solicitor for James's father Ralph, attacked the Ministry of Justice for its handling of the case since the news leaked in March of Venables' recall.

He said: "We consider that the way this has been handled since news of Jon Venables being recalled to custody has been a disaster.The public authorities ought to behave quite differently and in due course further details are likely to emerge of the mistakes that were made. Ineptitude and incompetence spring to mind."